This week, National Geographic published an interview with the lauded Science Guy titled "Why Bill Nye Calls Evolution 'Undeniable' and Creationism 'Inane'." A predictably incendiary repartee has ensued.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/01/150125-bill-nye-science-guy-evolution-creation-book-talk-culture/#
Here's my two cents.
Mr. Nye (The Science Guy) has drawn much well-deserved positive press
as a science advocate for many years. Still, the realm of science is
the scientific method alone, so when he speaks of evolution filling him
"with reverence for our place within the cosmos," he is in no way
speaking scientifically; he has abandoned the observable for the
unobservable -- the physical for the metaphysical.
His
underlying assumption about origins is that we're the product of some
primordial tryst of stardust and gravity, according to the article's
closing section. But where did the stardust come from? Or gravity?
Has
the law of gravity eternally existed? "In the beginning was gravity"
sounds awfully religious for so rational and scientific man as The
Science Guy.
Mr. Nye is free to analyze scientific
evidence as he pleases and even dabble in metaphysics on the side if it
floats his boat, but in the end he unwittingly exercises faith
(believing in what one cannot empirically prove) to the exact same
extent as any Muslim, Christian, or Hindu, etc., etc.
To
the extent that he builds an entire paradigm upon what he assumes has
existed eternally, he should more accurately wear the moniker: Bill Nye, the Religious Guy.
No comments:
Post a Comment